Judgment Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C. Dehradun (for short the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 166 of 2008, Smt. Amrita Bhatnagar Vs. The United India Insurance Company and others, whereby the claimant-respondent has been awarded compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum as mentioned in the impugned award. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent no. 1-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 9,70,000 under different counts owing to death of her son Ayan Bhatnagar (deceased), who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimant, on 29.6.2008 at about 9 a.m. near Rahul Dairy, Nehru Colony, Dehradun, the deceased was a pedestrian in Kuchha portion of the road. Suddenly, the offending vehicle Tavera UK-07TA/0491 came from the side of Teg Bahadur Road being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed by his driver. The driver lost control over steering and dashed the deceased, who fell down on the road and suffered grievous and multiple injuries on different part of his body including head. The injured was taken to C.M.I. Hospital where the doctors referred him to higher medical centre, hence the injured was taken to Doon Hospital. The injured succumbed to his injuries during the treatment on the same day. The deceased was a healthy person of 20 years and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of accidental death. He left behind the claimant Amrita Bhatnagar and Vishwa Kumar Bhatnagar, who are mother and father respectively. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The respondent no. 2 – Surendra Singh Gusain is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. Hence the claim petition was filed against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. 3. The appellant-insurance company-Opposite Party No. 1 resisted the claim petition by filing its written statement. It has been asserted that the deceased had not died due to injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident. The claimant is not legal representative of the deceased and she has no cause of action to file claim petition. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. 3. The appellant-insurance company-Opposite Party No. 1 resisted the claim petition by filing its written statement. It has been asserted that the deceased had not died due to injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident. The claimant is not legal representative of the deceased and she has no cause of action to file claim petition. The age and income of the deceased have been denied. The manner of accident as well as involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident has also been denied. It has also been asserted that the vehicle was not being driven by a person having valid and effective licence and there were no valid papers on the date of accident. 4. The respondent no. 2 filed his written statement and contested the suit. He denied the allegations on material points and pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive. The vehicle was being driven slowly at moderate speed. The deceased having lost his balance dashed against the vehicle and got injured. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the claim petition, heard learned counsel for the parties and ultimately came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently with the result the deceased suffered grievous injuries in the motor accident and died. The learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2 pertaining to relief has held that since the vehicle was duly insured and there was no violation of permit conditions, therefore, the appellant insurance company is liable for compensation. Learned Tribunal further observed that the deceased was bachelor at the time of his accidental death and he was aged 19 years. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and out of this income, 1/3rd has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal considering the age of the mother of the deceased as 44 years has applied multiplier of 15 to workout the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal worked out the compensation as Rs. 24,000/- x 15 = 3,60,000/-. Besides, the Tribunal has awarded amounts of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Ultimately, a compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- was awarded along with simple interest @ 6% per annum as mentioned in the impugned award. 6. 24,000/- x 15 = 3,60,000/-. Besides, the Tribunal has awarded amounts of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Ultimately, a compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- was awarded along with simple interest @ 6% per annum as mentioned in the impugned award. 6. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Tribunal has not calculated the compensation properly and has wrongly deducted only 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, while the same ought to have been taken 50% as the deceased was a bachelor. Learned counsel further submitted that the multiplier used in this case is on the higher side, while in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 121] the multiplier should have been taken considering the age of the parents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties sand perused the record. 8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. But considering the fact that the deceased is a bachelor, deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been made 50%. Thus, the loss of dependency come to Rs. 18,000/- per annum. In the claim petition, the age of the mother, who is the sole claimant, has been mentioned as 44 years. The age of the mother has not been disputed by the opposite parties. In the case of age of mother of the deceased being 44 years, the adequate multiplier as per Apex Court judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would be 14. The learned Tribunal in the present has applied multiplier of 15, which is not proper. I therefore hold that the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,000/- x 14 = Rs. 2,52,000/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. By adding the amounts of Rs. 12,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of estate, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,64,000/-. The respondent no. 1-claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- (Rs. Two lacs sixty four thousand only) along with simple interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 9. 12,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of estate, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,64,000/-. The respondent no. 1-claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- (Rs. Two lacs sixty four thousand only) along with simple interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 9. For the reasons and discussion above, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is upheld. So far as the finding on Issue No. 2 pertaining to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- instead of Rs. 3,72,000/- as held by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 3,72,000/-, the claimant-respondent no. 1 is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are upheld. 11. The amount deposited in appeal with the Registry of this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimant-respondent no. 1 as directed above.